Washington (CNN) - You have to give Jon Huntsman some credit. He’s willing to go where none of the other major Republican presidential candidates are willing to go.

He was the only one who actually endorsed the debt ceiling deal worked out between President Obama and the Republican and Democratic leadership. Even former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has a long history of being a moderate Republican, came out against the deal just before it was passed.
Huntsman also has endorsed same-sex civil unions. Like President Obama, he has not come out in favor of same-sex marriage.

“I believe in traditional marriage,” the former Utah governor and U.S. ambassador to China told me. “I don’t think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense.”

But he quickly added: “I’m for civil unions. I came out for civil unions a while ago. I think we can do a better job as it relates to overall equality, specifically as it relates to reciprocal beneficiary rights to gays.”

I asked him if he agrees that states like New York or Iowa have the right to legalize gay marriage. “Of course,” he said, “that’s absolutely their right. This is an issue more and more that should be driven at the state level.”

In the interview, Huntsman explained why he’s ignoring the presidential caucuses in Iowa. “I don’t have a geographic advantage there,” he said. “I’m not a supporter of ethanol subsidies.”

What is his strategy for winning the GOP nomination?

“So, if we deploy in the early primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, I’m here to tell you, based upon what I see today, we’ve got an excellent presence on the ground. We’ve got terrific people who have signed up, and who are endorsing us. We can get there, and it starts in New Hampshire.”

This part of my interview with Huntsman airs today in The Situation Room 5 pm ET.

soundoff(132 Responses)

John Lovewell

Freedom Fog...
Freedom is a double edged sword giving us the freedom to do a lot of things. But not everything! The
blinding fog befallen us is caused by dishonorable judges, declaring we are free to do anything to unravel
our society but what's right, and is going to bring us to a new civil war!
Hypocritical christens that don't share with their neighbors on Fox and God bashing Gays on CNN,
throw in unlimited amounts of corrupt election money and a Congress that would make more money off Armageddon than World War Three, just so they can blame it on the Black Man.
So we the people end up with everybody stabbing each other in the dark, free to watch cartoon child porn.
Welcome to America, May we take your order?

This is Me-Me again. Tell Jack I said hello! Wolfe I 'm watching President Obama's speech on T.V. right now. It was a safe speech, but Wolfe I don't understand why the President is not demanding that Congress get their butts back to Washington right now! He should not have to wait for them to return in Sept. The American people should not have to wait for them to return in Sept. That's a whole month from now. The country could have fallen off a cliff by then. Obama is the President and he was elected to repersent the American people and "we the people" say get their asses–excuse me Wolfe I mean get their butts back here now! If they refuse to do so-then it's not on Obama, it will be on them, and "we the people" are watching and remember come election time. They should NOT be allowed to sit on beaches, go fishing, and have bar B ques in their backyards while the rest of the world is living in hell. Call them back to work now!!!!!!!!

i have to agree with the person who said that Huntsman is too smart and reasonable to win the republican nomination. Its become the party of extremist idiots–They kind of lost it after Ford, honestly. I like the guy, though. If he were president, I could sleep easily at night. But I'll probably end up having to vote for Obama, since the likely republican candidates look like a sardine can of useless weirdos.

I’m a Democrat so it feels strange for me to praise a Republican, but it’s crazy how sane and level-headed Huntsman sounds! He’s digging his own grave by saying that he approves civil unions, but it’s good that he stands up for what he believes in instead of pandering to the tea party. I have to respect that. You get so used to hearing nothing but hate from people like Palin and Alan West, that you forget that people can actually be civil.

The gay/lesbian lobby has entwined themselves in the political arena to get their agenda on the front burner. They are no more of a minority worthy of such attention than white bread. In the end they can Redefine marriage (never been I now pronounce you man and man or wife and wife) in whatever manner they want but I doubt it gets recognized where it really counts.

Actually in Rome and Greece there was a time when marriage was a man and a man or a wife and a wife. There was a time when marriage was only white and white or black and black. Marriage could use some improvement. If Larry King can get numerous divorces then so can gays and lesbians.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. Being for civil unions and leaving gay marriage to the states is a lot less wonderful than it sounds. The civil union system demonstrably doesn't work, for the very same reason that some people insist on it instead of something called "marriage"–on paper couples have all the same rights (sometimes), but in real life people refuse to take them seriously, don't understand how they work, etc. and leave those couples in the same crappy situations they would be in if they hadn't gotten married at all. The burden of resulting discrimination lawsuits is no great bonus to local court systems either. And anybody who studied the path of interracial marriage in the U.S. would never, ever, ever say "let's leave it up to the states" and think they were saying a good thing. I appreciate that this guy is more reasonable than any other current GOP candidate I can think of, but what kind of an accomplishment is that? Be *actually* reasonable.

I would like Huntsman and everyone else to be for marriage, but it hasn't happened yet. He DOES want equal benefits. He's the only R candidate to support civil unions with full benefits. Doesn't sound like he supports DOMA.

NO to redefine traditional marriage. If gay marriage is allowed, how about bigamy? polygamy? bestiality? heck.. poly-bestiality? News in 2020: John X, Jane Y and Robert P sue the federal government that their marriage to a dog, goat and pig.. total unit of 6 must be recognized. Said animals need a TIN and we need a big tax break!

Why do people keep writing "(so and so) is the only republican I would vote for" ???? Why are you TRYING to vote Republican in the first place? Unless you are rich or a complete social conservative wing nut, there is no reason to vote for them. That party long ago lost its footing and is mostly partisan hacks who have ZERO interest in preserving our great society, ZERO interest in your welfare unless you are rich, ZERO interest in conservationism, and, quite frankly, ZERO interest in smaller government. The right wing of today created all the wars we are in, created the debt, nearly doubled the size and cost of the government and ACTIVELY took your rights away with DOMA, the Patriot Act, and similar. Why even try? THey are a sickness in our society.

i voted for Obama and am still a supporter of Obama. i will give Mr. Huntsman the chance to sway my support. so i guess we shall see what happens when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Mr. Huntsman, in my opinion, is the only Republican candidate that has the intelligence to debate Obama..

As a Utah resident who voted for Obama, I have a lot of respect for Huntsman. In my book, he was a very good governor who took risky and sometimes unpopular positions in such a conservative state. An intelligent, thoughtful, and pragmatic man. A debate between him and Obama would be something to see!

If Huntman gets the nod, I really think that no matter who wins between Huntsman and Obama, America will do just fine. Both are decent in their own ways.
One thing that interests me is that Huntsman does not support corn-based ethanol. However, there is a way to change this to his advantage. Basically, we have a load of Ag subsidies out there. The largest is using our corn for ethanol. But, another large one is Conservation subsidies. FOr some of that land, it made sense to idle it. However, the vast majority was simply planted with grass, and farmers are literally paid to NOT farm it. Yet, more than 3/4 of it, has nothing growing on it except for grass. No trees, etc. Basically, the farmers were paid to take it out of production because it was low quality land for planting things like Corn, etc. However, it works fine for grass. By dropping these lands out of the conservation subsidies and moving them to growing specific grass for using in bio-fuels, we could bring in 10's of millions of acres back into PRODUCTIVE use. That would also restart a number of farmers that are currently paid to do.... NOTHING. They will need to buy equipment and re-start farming again, or lease it to somebody that will make money.
That is just one way for him to change his tune and re-engage with IOwa, and others.

As an Independent. it's refreshing to see a Republican you doesn't sound crazy. Too bad the party is run by right wing zealots who won't allow moderates to be heard. There is no way Obama should be re-elected but he probably will if the Tea Party-ers run the show.

I really hope Huntsman starts gaining some traction in this race. I’ve been a registered Republican for almost thirty years, but I haven’t had the stomach to vote for single one in the last eleven years and I don’t see that changing unless Huntsman gets the nomination. As for his challengers, I wouldn’t vote for any of them to be the county dog warden…I like animals too much.

You have to respect a politician who answers a call to serve his president despite the fact he is affiliated with the opposition and perhaps disagrees on many issues espoused by his commander-in-chief. Mr. Huntsman place duty to the country above politics. If anything, his GOP bretheren should laud him for that. However I agree with some of the other comments: the GOP just doesn't elect leaders of statesmen calibre anymore.

I like Jon Huntsman, but I am definately going to vote for Obama in 2012. Maybe if the GOP can nominate Huntsman in 2016, I will definately vote for him. I like reasonable people, not absolutists who don't budge even if it means defaulting the economy.

Homosexuality? Really? Who the frick cares!?? What a non issue. We are on the verge of a global econmic meltdown that will make the great depression look like a sunday picnic and they are talking gay marriage. "Hey look at us distract you by wiggling our fingers. Weeeee!" What a bunch of sheeple.

Typical narrow-minded worldview of even the most moderate of conservatives...we want you to have everything we do – as long as you understand that we are being sooo generous as to ALLOW you to be equal to us....though your "civil union" is still considered "less" than our marriage!

"This is an issue more and more that should be driven at the state level."

Once DOMA is officially repealed due to its unconstitutionality, how can a federal law that is deemed unconstitutional then be deemed constitutional by any given individual state?

Go on and wave that big ignorance flag. Plenty of us are fertile in addition to adopting a boatload of the babies that straight people discard. Our country's ability to welcome immigrants (of the legal variety, IMHO) has saved our hash many times over the last couple hundred years.

Oh, and if we're not equal, we sure would like a tax break to reflect that fact. Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and take up that cause?

August 4, 2011 at 9:59 am |

CloudyOne

Oh you're right, someone is ignorant just because they disagree with you! Good job with the name calling! My statement still holds true, you ARE different. It's scientific FACT. 2 X's and 2 Y's. is different than 3 X's and 1 Y.

I made a simple statement of truth.

Your statement however is quite telling about what you really want, and it's apparently not equality :)

August 4, 2011 at 6:13 pm |

FamilyGuy61

Agreed... but... For a candidate from today's far right Republican party, this is pretty radical, and that is the point of the article.

If the DOMA is deemed unconstitutional it will be because the federal government has not been given authority under the Constitution to have delegated power to regulate marriage. States on the other hand have plenary power and it is well within their rights to define marriage as anything that does not violate federal law; specifically federal civil rights laws. As for your comments about people needing to make sure others understand they are superior, my advice is stop worrying about the perception of being slighted. Worry about when you are actually being slighted.

Huntsman is a smart, reasonable guy. Unfortunately, the current iteration of the Republican party seems to hate smart reasonable people (indeed, most two-year-olds tend to be more reasonable and intellectually curious than the Republican Congrssional Class of 2010). Maybe in 2016 the GOP will be mature enough for a guy like Huntsman.

As a progressive, I can say Huntsman is the only Republican candidate who I don't think is crazy. Historically, Romney hasn't been very bad, but he is starting to suck up to those Tea Baggers. Gary Johnson also seems okay, though he is far under the radar at this point. Hell, if Rick Perry would be better than some of them. I think the ones I really dislike are Bachmann (does she sound less intelligent that Palin? I'm a feminist, I want women in politics, but why are the big-name GOP women so stupid; where's Olympia Snowe, she is an amazing GOP women), Pawlenty (He gets on my nerves; he's over confident about everything), Santorum (he was my senator in PA for a few years, a social conservative extremist). I don't think capitalistic libertarianism would work, in fact I know it would only cause more poverty as research shows, but I still think a Ron Paul experiment would be interesting haha.

Presidential politics are driven by money; who gets it, and how much and how soon. Huntsman sounds quite reasonable, but that will not cut it with the people who have the money. He will run out of money long before people come to understand his policies or see what he might be a good man for the job. This is why radical right wing people seem to do better, because it is very clear who their constituency is...

It is funny that there are hardly any conservative comments on CNN anymore. Perhaps it is because of "objective" reporting by the likes of Wolf who begins his article as follows:

"You have to give Jon Huntsman some credit. He’s willing to go where none of the other major Republican presidential candidates are willing to go."

Objective Wolf? I'd like too see you start any article with a similar bent towards Democrats.

And all you Democrats posting away out there–I thought Obama was going to fix the economy. What happened? Oh it is the Republicans fault, even though the Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the presidency were held by Democrats. Oh wait, no it is Bush's fault.

For the record, Mitt Romney hasn't been on the radar as a moderate for quite awhile now. His father was a great Republican, a true moderate who lost to Nixon in 1968 – perhaps the beginning-of-the-end for moderation in Republican politics.

Being that we are in the shape we are in, it is hard to believe people are going to sway their vote because of gay marriage. If we put it off for four more years are any gay people really suffering or denied any rights or privileges because they cant get married?

Shmeckell – "If we put it off for four more years are any gay people really suffering or denied any rights or privileges because they cant get married?"

Actually, Shmeckell, the answer is YES. If we put it off for 1 more minute, gay people will continue to suffer and continue to be denied rights and privileges. At this very moment, the laws of our country (including DOMA) are patently unconstitutional and deprive gays of the right to marry and the right to enjoy all of the benefits associated with marriage. By way of example, here are a few of the rights to which gays and lesbians are excluded:

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
The right (under FMLA) to take leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or the parent of a partner.
The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to assume parenting responsibilities when children are brought into a family.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

There are hundreds of rights that gays and lesbians do not enjoy in the United States. As such, every minute that passes without legalized same-sex marriage is another minute in which gays and lesbians are experiencing discimination in the worst way.

Steve – which of these rights would not be available under a same-sex civil union?

August 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

Concerned

Umm marriage has several benefits: namely hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc.
To say 'they can hold' off is silly. Would you arbitrarily wait 4 years or more to marry because the government simply doesn't agree with your love interest? What business do they have regulating your love life?

Such as the right to be by their partner's bedside in the hospital? Or the right to inherit property that they've accumulated together without being taxed? Imagine your spouse died today and you immediately had to liquidate all of your property in order to pay inheritance tax on it. I assume you would have a problem with that, as would any straight married American.

While there are other issues on the table right now, there will always be other issues. Your vote should not be made based upon only one topic but rather a cumulation of all a candidate's positions. Or would you prefer they all simply state their opinion on the economy and be mysterious with regards to all other positions?

During your interview with Huntsman, Huntsman stated that America's largest trading partner was China. Well, according to most agencies which keep track of such matters, America's largest trading partner is not China, but Canada. Canada is America's largest trading partner. (Wiki article link here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States )

That's only for trade in goods–Throw in the rest of the balance of payments and things change. According to Treasury (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt) Chinese treasury holdings increased in the past year by more than enough than Canada's to make up for Canada's lead in the goods trade. Capital moves across borders in far greater quantities than goods.

CNN sunshine pumping demonstrates that Obama is unelectable in 2012 and they are hoping that they can push an Obamanite as an alternative who is willing to rubber stamp the socialist policies of Harry Reid. Fortunately, most conservatives don't watch CNN.

The one single question I would ask of EVERY legislator, including Hatch, Bachman, Obama, and every one, is EXACTLY which earmark projects will we cut.

For Utah, shall we cut out the Federal money for the Freeway upgrades? light rail for the inner citiesx? Should we do away with medical research? Should we close down all of the National Parks? Tell me, EXACTLY what doyou want to cut? Do you want to renig on the promise you made to the American People, about social security?

Should we close down the Veterans Hospital? How about closing Hill AFB, or even about closing half of the military bases across the country, that could save a lot, I'm sure!

How about the federal help for the flooding, and other natural disasters? Who wants to be the one to tell the folks in say, New Orleans, "Sorry folks, you're on you own; good luck!"?

Do we want to cut funding for education? Fire about half of the teachers, the one's that are hired under any federal funding plan for education. While we're at it, let's just close down Health, Education, and Welfare offices, after all who needs such fluff?

Should we close down the FAA? I'm sure that the airlines test their pilots to insure they can see well enough to not hit any other aircraft? Landing could be an adventure, not wasted time!

How about the subsidies for the oil and gas companies, to explore to find new oil and gas? How about cutting out all research grants, loans, and money for alternative energy? How about all of those educational loans, small business loans, and while we're at it, dump Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and any government loan to banks, (yes, the FDIC is fluff too), or for loans?

It would certainly make for an interesting country, that's for sure.. so, my fair representative, which would YOU cut? Should we cut any or all of these? Or, are we as bad as the rest, and say "Yes, cut federal spending, BUT NOT ANY OF MY PET PROJECTS!" That, my friends is exactly how we got INTO this situation, by "giving" pork in a bill that can't pass unless some other congressman is bribed by giving some of that precious federal money in exchange for their vote.

DO AWAY WITH IT ALL, or NONE, and quit your bellyaching, and blaming the "other" party. YOU ARE ALL TO BLAME! It's about time the adults in the room stood up and accepted that!

Much like driving down the middle of our public roads, in a race for the Presidency you can't make it there without hitting a pothole and crashing. You have to go way off-road riding an over-the-top X-TREME vehicle to make it there in one piece.

Ironically. The guy that wants to drive down the middle of the road is the same guy that wants to fix the potholes. But, since the crazy people aren't using them, they don't care.

I think a ton of people of both major parties believe 'civil unions' are palatable and should have similar tax standing, etc. as marriage, but don't want to redefine marriage. Even Barack Obama has basically staked out this position, but he has llargely been given a pass by Liberals on his own standing on that topic; if he were a Republican, he'd been crucified over that moderate stance.

In the few posts here that I've seen, the Liberals instantly label all Republicans poorly. Example: "Remarkably civil and sane" for a Republican. Give me a break, some of the most hateful, narrow-minded, my-way-or-the highway people are Liberals who label anything other than their own opinion as hateful. The despicable things people say about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, that are then applauded openly by Liberals, are even more proof of Liberal's lack of civility.

So far, I really like what I'm seeing from Huntsman. Both parties need to quit pandering to their far Left or Right wings, and start really listening to the people. On the subjects of gays, I think most folks don't have a problem with civil unions nor do they want to see any kind of hatred toward them. When Liberals quit trying to ram gay marriage down our throats and playing the race card endlessly, and when ultra-Conservatives quit villifying gays, then we can talk about issues that are really important: like getting our economy going and returning this country to one that values hard work and expects something from its citizens.

Ever heard the term "separate but equal"? The U.S. Supreme Court found that separate rights are not equal rights years ago, and the "civil unions" are a shining example of what this references. I will continue to shove marriage down your throat, as you say, until I have the same rights as an American that you do. I don't care whether you want to "redefine" marriage or not because I live in a country based upon the concept of equal civil rights.

A liberal refusing to accept anything less than equality who views opponents as people who are opposed to following the U.S. Constitution is by no means comparable to a conservative who believes only those they view as moral should have equal civil rights. I don't care what your opinion is on being gay or on my "lifestyle" and you have the right to think whatever you want, but as long as you are opposed to my equal protections under the law and equal civil rights, you continue to be an un-patriotic, bigoted American.

(BTW: A bigot is a person who forces others to live according to their beliefs even when others do not want to. Giving me rights would not force you to get married to someone of the same sex, but not giving me rights forces me NOT to. So only one of us is "shoving" anything down the other's throat. Thus only one of us is a bigot, whether or not I ACCEPT your views.)

This is where the Republican Party should be if they want to take the White House. After the debt ceiling fiasco, the country will be seeking someone who is not a flamethrower. Not many Republicans understand that pi~~ing all over everything all of the time is old, and that only the fringe of their party enjoys that tactic. (Fortunately, the fringe does not elect presidents.) Huntsmen, the statesman, gets it.

At least one GOP presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman, has shown that he iis presidential material. He is independent and thoughtful on the issues. Unlike Romney, he doesn't test which way the wind is blowing before taking a stand on controversial issues. Unfortunately, the Tea Party and social conservative wing may not recognize that he would be the most formidable challenger against President Obama.

CNN is a farce. Any 'news agency' that allows the narrow-minded idiots to post crude remarks like 'teabaggers' or untrue or slanderous remarks (lMcHugh*) for their own political gain isn't worth reading.

*Also, HcHugh - nobody call the president a 'tar baby'. Read the story. A congressman said his policies are like a tar baby (a sticky situation that gets worse with struggle or effort). Before you start claiming 'racism' - know your facts and look into a person's past. Weak.

The Tea Party held a knife to the throat of the American economy and threatned to kill it if they did not get their way.If you wnat more of that, stay home during the next election and let the extreme Tea Party decide who will lead. If you want to know what that would look like come to Maine and see for yourself. We've got a Tea Party Gov and legislature. We have never been worse off in our state government.

John Huntsman is the only decent candidate in the Republican party. He seems to think for himself rather than letting the Tea Party and Grover Norquist do it for him. I wish you much luck sir but I will be voting for Obama. Rebublicans are to far right for the good of the country. Look at what happened with the debt ceiling. It cost the American tax payer 1.7 billion and we are on credit watch. The push forward to tackle the debt crisis NOW rather than working it in with the recovery will cost us thousands of jobs. In 1920 for every $1 we took in we were spending $3. WWII was over and radicals tried to force a balance budget. It took us into a deep depression. I quess these Tea Party people do not study history and have not concern for the jobless or the well being of its people.

Tea Baggers, as noted by Republican Alan Simpson of the Debt Commission, are people who value money over country. As evidenced in the recent debt ceiling negotiations, country can be sacrificed if it keeps more money in their pocket. It's not rocket science to figure out what is going on.

You know as a Democrat I like this guy if I had to support a Republican it would be him. He seemd to be remarkably civil and sane , for a republican. I would like to see him jump parties and run against Obama.

If the Republican party has any sense, Jon Huntsman should be their candidate. He is a moderate, reasonable man that has sound judgement and good ideas. He does not pander to the right wing side of the Republican party. That may cost him the nomination but then I think the American Elect party should approach him if that that happens to see if he would be their candidate for President. I really look forward to a Obama against Huntsman election. I think for the first time in a long time we will have a very good debate on the future direction of America. I am an Obama supporter but I think if Huntsman is the candidate, he will give Obama a run for his money.

As most everyone knows, the Economy will be the central issue in this next election. Over the next several months, we will see the impact of the deficit reduction plan as part of the debt ceiling deal. My prediction is that it won't be pretty. I hope I'm wrong. The one group that will be held responsible for the new recession brought on by the Tea Party's demand for deficit reduction in a slow economy will be that Tea Party. My prediction is that most of them will be voted out of office. I think that Jon Huntsman is one of the few Republicans that can get their party back on track as a conservative party in the mold of William Buckley's form of conservatism not the right wing extremism version that the Tea Party Terrorists are trying to achieve. They are nothing but Fascists hiding behind the Republican cloak.

Message to the Tea Party – become your own party and stop sucking the life blood out of the Grand Ol' Party.

Mr Huntsman, I have bad news for you...
You are not a soulless greedy pig, and your party only elects soulless greedy pigs these days (at least since Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh started calling the shots). Better run as an independent.

Exactly right. If he did get the nomination, as an Obama supporter I'd be afraid, to be honest. This guy is likable, sane, and moderate. He'd actually have a chance against the president in the general election. Unfortunately for the Republicans, their party has been hijacked and there is no way a centrist like Huntsman could EVER win a primary. Still, I commend him for sticking to what he believes in rather than veering rightward to pander to the crazy vote like John McCain did.

Attractive, kind of, succesful yes, intelligent... no no no no no no no no

August 3, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

twgloege

Dear Mr. Bob,
How much fertilizer ya got saved up?

August 3, 2011 at 6:58 pm |

QS

"It's not her fault that you are a loser."

It is her fault that she's a loser.

August 3, 2011 at 7:37 pm |

R. McHugh

Who is the congressman that called our President a "tar baby" during a radio talk show and why is CNN not covering it. I was watching CNN when I got the message that the radio talk shows were in an uproar over the comments and many callers warned that this is not over. Why don't we talk openly about what is really going on or do we continue to sweep racism under the rug hoping it will go away?